---

Lord Monson: My Lords, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, for giving us the chance to debate this important subject, which is of concern to so many people. The Motion rightly differentiates between immigration, in the sense of economic immigration, and asylum, even though the demarcation line between the two is inevitably sometimes blurred.

I shall start with immigration. Apart from ultra-purist freemarketeers such as Milton Friedman—and, I suspect, the noble Lord, Lord Desai—who believe that anybody should be able to settle anywhere without hindrance, most of us would agree that every country has the legal and moral right to determine its own immigration policy, whether it be relaxed or restrictive, or somewhere in between the two.

The prime example at one extreme is the United States, which permits substantial legal immigration—and winks at large-scale illegal immigration across the Rio Grande, which provides a valuable source of cheap labour—asking only that immigrants embrace the American way of life as quickly as possible. That undoubtedly helps America's economic growth, and is facilitated by a low population density—less than one-seventh of that of Great Britain—that ensures that house prices and rents remain affordable.

At the other extreme is Japan, which, while reluctantly allowing in temporary workers, does everything possible to prevent immigration for permanent settlement. The electorate is prepared to sacrifice some economic growth for the sake of racial and cultural homogeneity. I predict that when China eventually becomes so prosperous that its supply of indigenous cheap labour dries up, which it will at some point, it too will adopt a very restrictive immigration policy, allowing in only those of Han Chinese descent. A similar policy can be found in some smaller countries, with Iceland, for example, discouraging immigrants who are not of northern European origin and Ghana positively banning those who are not of black African origin.

There are other countries which would have banned immigration, had they been allowed the democratic right to do so: Tibet is a prime example—the Tibetans
 
23 Feb 2005 : Column 1257
 
certainly do not feel culturally enriched by the Chinese influx—as well as Estonia, Latvia and, to a lesser extent, Lithuania prior to 1989.

The immigration policies of other countries range between these two extremes. For example, Germany favours the Volksdeutsche and France fluent French speakers, wherever they may come from in the world. Of course, both Germany and France are much more lightly populated than we are.

As for our overcrowded island, the Government are at long last aiming in the right direction, albeit seven years too late. Of course immigration brings many economic benefits, but there is also a downside. Some years ago, the Observer—and I do not think that anybody would argue that the Observer is a Right-wing newspaper—concluded that the pros and cons of large-scale immigration were very finely balanced, with the short-term productivity benefits being almost outweighed by the need for massive investment in extra schools and hospitals and, I suggest, eventually in old people's homes. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, made somewhat the same point.

Tens of thousands of Britons spend two, three or five years working in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Singapore, Hong Kong, Sydney, Los Angeles, New York and so on, and return home at the end of their contracts with bulging wallets and broadened minds. How much better for all concerned if more of the immigration into this country had followed a similar pattern, with returning immigrants investing their savings and their know-how in their countries of origin.

This point is still relevant today, as the Government declare their intention to go on admitting highly skilled immigrants. Is it morally acceptable to lure doctors and nurses from Third World countries to our shores for good? Of course we need them, but their own countries need them even more. It would surely be more ethical and correct to offer them short-term contracts in the hope that after a few years they will return to minister to their compatriots.

Let me re-emphasise that the population of the United Kingdom in 1951 was 50.225 million. It is expected to grow to 64.18 million by 2026, which is an increase of almost 28 per cent in 75 years and is unparalleled elsewhere in Europe. Our desperately congested roads and railways, the imminent concreting over of much of southern England and the driving up of house prices to way beyond the reach of first-time buyers are testimony to this.

This overcrowding also has a bearing on asylum to which I now turn. There are those in different parts of the political spectrum who now agree that economic immigration must be almost totally stopped but who say that there must never been any cap on the granting of political asylum. Really? Suppose that, heaven forbid, a new Pol Pot were to come to power, this time not in Cambodia, but in China, causing a quarter of the population—remembering Cambodia, and, indeed, East Timor—to fear for their lives and to flee westward en masse. Would we really be able to accommodate 8 million people—in other words, 2.5 per cent of
 
23 Feb 2005 : Column 1258
 
the exodus—which is a realistic proportion in the circumstances? Thank God, this is an extremely unlikely scenario, but not a totally impossible one, which is why one should never use the word "never" in politics.

In parenthesis, I remind the House that in April 1977 a previous Labour government refused point blank my plea that they should admit a mere 750 Vietnamese boat people, arguing that we were not technically responsible for them under the 1951 convention, which was indeed true. In fairness, the two opposition parties were equally unenthusiastic. It was left to Mrs Thatcher, as she then was, five years later to admit 20 times as many as had been turned down in 1977.

Now, in response to a Starred Question on 7 February, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, defended the 1951 convention as it stands, even though the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, speaking from the Conservative Front Bench, put it to him that four years earlier the Prime Minister had written in the Times that the convention needed reforming.

Clearly, the Government must have changed their mind since 2001. But I suggest that the Prime Minister was right then and must be wrong now. After all, in 1951 the world population was approximately 2.5 billion; today it is two-and-a-half times higher at 6.3 billion and is expected to rise to 8.9 billion by 2050. In 1951, there were no jumbo jets carrying passengers for as little as 2½ pence per mile on some routes across continents—equivalent to just over a farthing a mile in 1951 prices—not least because jumbo jets had not yet been invented.

In 1951, only a small proportion of the world's population had access to radio or telephone, almost none to television and nobody at all to the Internet. Few in the Third World believed that the streets of London were paved with gold; not least because hardly any of them had a clue where London was. What a contrast to today.

In 1951, though there was virtually no democracy anywhere in Africa, almost everyone on the continent had enough to eat and there was no mass slaughter. Today, the standard of living in much of sub-Saharan Africa is appreciably lower than it was in 1951; hence the thousands of Africans who drown each year trying to reach Fuerteventura, Lanzarote or Tarifa, hoping to claim refugee status.

The point is that none of this could possibly have been foreseen in 1951. The convention therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, stressed, is most certainly ripe for reform, and the gold-plating of its provisions by our judiciary should be reversed.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, for giving us this opportunity for the debate, which has aroused recent widespread publicity. The noble Lord was once the Home Secretary. In those days I did not agree with many of the things he said; today I stand in the same position.
 
23 Feb 2005 : Column 1259
 

Immigration and asylum issues are fairly emotive. Despite the nature and effects of various pieces of immigration and asylum legislation, the circumstances surrounding them remain contentious.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that every country has a right to determine its immigration policy, and the United Kingdom is no exception. However, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, is also right in that the matter is not helped by the way the issue is covered by the press and politicians. The barometer of xenophobia can best be understood by the effect of hostile pronouncement in some tabloids accompanied by tough government measures to curb immigration and asylum to this country.

I do not question the right to free speech and expression, but I hope that equally understood is the fear it generates in minorities in this country. Too often we seem to be playing the numbers game. I believe that immigration policy should be based on the country's need. Unfortunately, this has not been the case.

Let me go back to 1951, some 54 years ago. The then Labour government set up an interdepartmental committee to consider the possibility of legislation and administrative methods to deal with immigration. So pre-occupied were the Ministers with the numbers entering the United Kingdom, that the welfare and integration of newcomers was not even discussed. In fact, the key policy recommendation was—and remember I am talking of 1951—that,

"any solution depending on an apparent or concealed colour test would be so invidious as to be impossible of adoption. Nevertheless it has to be recognised that the use of any powers taken to restrict the free entry of British subjects to this country would, as a general rule, be more or less confined to coloured persons".

That is before systematic migration from the Commonwealth began. It was also the precursor to almost all Commonwealth Immigration Acts introduced since 1962.

Such attitudes have not only shaped our immigration policies, but have also done much harm in the way we have conducted our race relation policies. In the past we have seen race and immigration issues being exploited during election campaigns—in 1964, Peter Griffiths fighting Patrick Gordon Walker in the Smethwick election, and in 1968 Enoch Powell in the "Rivers of Blood" speech. Those are good examples to quote.

I suspect that with the proximity of the general election in the coming months, the same pattern as in previous years will emerge; and we have been proved right. It is important that we take great care in the way such issues are debated. Rational debates are part of our political process, but it carries with it responsibility to ensure that it has no damaging effect on those who provide much needed services to our country and those who need our protection.

There is evidence that emotive pronouncements have resulted in violence and harassment. It will be a shame, indeed a tragedy, if refugees who have fled from persecution were to find themselves victims of harassment in this country.
 
23 Feb 2005 : Column 1260
 

Britain has a rich tradition and history based on a nation of migrants. They have made, and continue to make, unique contributions to the prosperity of this nation. In arts, science, technology and now even in politics, they have made important contributions.

Consider the last major intake of refugees in the 1970s. We had a Conservative government who accepted over 28,000 Ugandan Asians. No one would dispute that they have contributed so well towards our economy. We are indeed grateful to the then Home Secretary the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, for the way he handled the issue. It was a political decision of courage and a lesson for politicians to learn.

The noble Lord, Lord Carr, told me that the Heath Cabinet took fewer than five minutes to reach the conclusion. That was the acceptable face of the Tory Party then. We are now seeing major political parties competing with each other in readiness to curtail the arrival of newcomers.

No one disputes the need to take into account the national interest, but, with the increasing development of a global economy, the pressure to migrate is immense. Western nations require the skills now available in many parts of the world. The drop in the birth rate signals a dilemma for countries like Germany and Britain. Who is going to pay for the welfare and pensions in a declining working population? It is here that we need to balance the rhetoric with reality.

We shall have to look at immigration and the arrival of newcomers as an ongoing process. No longer can we slam the door in the face of those who make a substantial contribution to the prosperity of our nation. A debate about what a modern and effective immigration policy should look like needs to be defined. It should not be a reaction to emotional outpourings of tabloid newspapers or a knee-jerk reaction to political point scoring.

We need to draw on many complex and interrelated issues. Immigration should be looked at on the basis of huge economic benefits for the United Kingdom if we are to adapt to the new environment of global economy. The cost of mismanaging immigration could have dire economic consequences for generations to come.

The stark reality is that if we fail to produce wealth, and it is people who produce wealth, this country cannot sustain health, education, pensions and service provision for future generations. Countries like the USA, Canada and Germany have realised that.

Migration is not simply about economics. We all benefit by the enrichment of our social and cultural lives. The whole area of immigration cries out for more research. What brings people here? What are their skills? How do they settle in this environment? Does immigration react with social stability? How do we raise the level of political debate? How do we challenge many of the assumptions that are made? The contribution that migrants make to our economy does not seem to receive much prominence.

The Government statistics confirm that non-EU visitors spend over £6 billion a year; overseas students spend £2.7 billion on goods and services and £2.3 billion on tuition fees.
 
23 Feb 2005 : Column 1261
 

Would we be able to maintain our health service if overseas doctors and nurses were not recruited? Would we be able to maintain our financial standing in the City of London without the help of IT and finance professionals from abroad? Would our transport infrastructure survive without the labour from Third World countries? The level of migration to Britain is less than to many other countries in the world.

Britain is a tolerant nation, and we can all be proud of our record on race and community relations. The old days of the 1950s and 1960s, when we relied on unskilled workers to provide labour for our industries, have gone. We now have a technological revolution in many parts of the world, and in particular on the Indian subcontinent. They have the skills which we need. The demand is universal. They will go elsewhere if our immigration policy is seen to be hostile.

Let us also look at the other aspects of movement of people from one country to another. The post-war efforts culminated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, including the right to seek asylum. The 1951 UN Convention on Refugees gave that right a legal expression. Today, in the 54th year of that convention, we celebrate the proud history of offering shelter to those fleeing persecution. Unfortunately, the recent pronouncements from Michael Howard are a matter of serious concern. May I say what a delight it was to hear the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, say that it would be tragic if this were to happen. He and I come from the same county of Sussex, and I have always appreciated his particular concern on the serious issues of immigration and asylum.

It would be a tragedy if the United Kingdom failed to meet its basic obligations under the 1951 convention. This obviously includes giving sanctuary to convention refugees who arrive on our shores.

In conclusion, we need to enlarge and not reduce the scope of the convention on the rights of refugees. There are also issues concerning unaccompanied children and their rights as asylum seekers. Immigration must not simply be regarded as a matter of numbers. It is about human beings desperately searching to improve their lives from those of poverty, persecution and despair. We, in turn, enhance our civilised values by helping them. That is the acceptable face of Britain that I want to see.

---